2018 (9) TMI 1440
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and in law, the Tribunal ought to have held that the Cenvat Credit on 50% value of CI Moulds is available in the subsequent Financial Year under Rule 4(2) (b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2002? (b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the amendment made to Rule 4(2)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2002 by the Cenvat Credit (18th Amendment Rules 2003) i.e. Notification No.70 of 2003 Central Excise (M.T.) dated 15th September, 2003, are not retrospective and/or clarificatory in nature? (c) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2005?" 3. The Appellants a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wever, by an order dated 18th October, 2004, the appeal was dismissed by holding that prior to issue of Notification No.70/2003 (M.T.), Central Excise dated 15th September, 2003, the requirement of possession and use of the capital goods i.e. Moulds was a condition precedent for availing of 50% of Cenvat Credit of the duty paid thereon in terms of Rule 4(2)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2002. The penalty of Rs. 20,000/under Rule 13 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2002 was left undisturbed. 8. The Appellant filed a further appeal to the Tribunal. By the impugned order dated 13th May, 2015, the appeal was dismissed. This by holding that the amendment to Rule 4(2)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2002 was prospective w.e.f. the issue of Notification ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....003. (iii) On the other hand, Mr. Jetly, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue submits that the impugned order of the Tribunal had placed reliance upon the decision of its Coordinate Bench in Sri Krishna Alloys (supra) wherein identical contention was urged on behalf of the Appellants-Assessee therein, was rejected. Aggrieved by the above order of the Tribunal, M/s. Sri Krishna Alloys (supra) had preferred an Appeal to the High Court of Madras and the appeal of Sri Krishnan Alloys (supra) was reported as Sri Krishnan Alloys v/s. CESTAT 344 ELT 645. Thus, the issue raised herein stands concluded by the decision of the Madras High Court in favour of the Revenue. (iv) We note that the submission of Mr. Singh in support of the Appeal, are....